Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

The projects speaking tube.
Add your two cents if you want to.

Re: Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

Postby -Philosopher- » 09 Oct 2017, 18:33

Alpha 05

... plays quite differently on master vs. 1.10 - 3.1.5 (which are fairly similar to each other), particularly in the final assault on the NE NP base.

1. The SW scav group (the first objective marked, when you start the away mission) behaves differently in Master to 1.10 - 3.1.5.
In 1.10 - 3.1.5 the group divides and attacks in two directions. I’m not sure which triggers them - either building a structure near the LZ, your units getting far enough south or a time is reached - but when they do, half of the group heads north towards the LZ; the remainder wait to be spotted by player units before attacking/heading east:
Image Image Image

In master, most times they don’t split (making them easier to mop up), or on the rare occasion they do, only three break away:
Image
The result is in 1.10 - 3.1.5 your LZ is likely to be attacked whereas in master its unlikely.

2. In 1.10 - 3.1.5 these scavs attack the player units as soon as the scav base is attacked:
Image
In master they only attack if units come within visual range, so they will happily sit in place and be wiped out by artillery without moving.

[Edit] 2a. In master, the northern scav group only moves when the aforementioned group moves, exacerbating the issue.
Image
In 1.10 - 3.1.5, the two groups operate independently and the northern group can usually be found surrounding the sensor unit (if it made it to its northern holding position).

3. I’m not certain of this one but it’s worth checking. The second transmission about being “in violation of the new paradigm” appears to be triggered differently in master than in 1.10 - 3.1.5. In the wzscript versions, it is triggered when a NP unit or the NP base is attacked (usually the NP sensor unit, as it’s the most exposed). In master, it appears when… a line is crossed on the map? In this example, no NP units have been attacked, yet when my sensor gets close enough to spot the base, the cutscene is triggered:
Image
This doesn’t happen in 1.10 - 3.1.5, and makes no sense as the message in the cutscene is “your attacks upon us will not go unpunished…”

4. In the same example, you can see the commander group is piling out to attack (at the same time as the mini-pod group):
Image Image
This is not correct. In 1.10 - 3.1.5 the commander only sallies forth if the base (i.e. the structures) are attacked. Attacking NP units is not enough to get him to attack as long as you leave the base itself alone (although it is enough for the mini-pod group - hence in 1.10 - 3.1.5 you are usually able to deal with the two groups separately). He certainly doesn't come out if you're just in the general vicinity. Also, in 1.10 - 3.1.5 the commander will go back inside the base if the player withdraws far enough (or enough of the commander’s attached units are damaged - not sure which). Between that behaviour and his retreating when damaged, it’s actually quite hard to destroy the commander outside and you normally have to fight him in the tight confines of the base in 1.10 - 3.1.5. Not so in master - once triggered, he stays triggered and keeps attacking the player units, even if it means moving outside of the relative protection of the base and its covering fire. An analogy might be in 1.10 - 3.1.5 the commander is in “guard” mode; in master he’s in “pursue” mode (albeit with retreat-when-damaged).

5. What damage threshold have you set the commander to retreat at? In master he seems to be willing to take a lot more punishment before turning around than in 1.10 - 3.1.5, which usually results in him losing his entire entourage before retreating (or is that an issue of what damage threshold they’re set to retreat at… or both?), or is wzcam and jscam actually the same re. this and it just seems different?

On the flip side, I notice that the artifact dropped from the factory now appears in the correct place (thus fixing a longstanding bug in wzcam) and the victory conditions have been corrected :)
Last edited by -Philosopher- on 10 Oct 2017, 15:02, edited 1 time in total.
-Philosopher-
Trained
Trained
 
Posts: 115
Joined: 08 Oct 2014, 11:34

Re: Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

Postby Bethrezen » 09 Oct 2017, 19:45

3. I’m not certain of this one but it’s worth checking. The second transmission about being “in violation of the new paradigm” appears to be triggered differently in master than in 1.10 - 3.1.5. In the wzscript versions, it is triggered when a NP unit or the NP base is attacked (usually the NP sensor unit, as it’s the most exposed). In master, it appears when… a line is crossed on the map? In this example, no NP units have been attacked, yet when my sensor gets close enough to spot the base, the cutscene is triggered:

Image

This doesn’t happen in 1.10 - 3.1.5, and makes no sense as the message in the cutscene is “your attacks upon us will not go unpunished…”


Humm… well that's odd because that doesn't happen to me normally I only get that message when my artillery open up on there base, or i attack the new paradigm scanner, or i get to close to there base.

Image Image

4. In the same example, you can see the commander group is piling out to attack (at the same time as the mini-pod group):

Image Image

This is not correct. In 1.10 - 3.1.5 the commander only sallies forth if the base (i.e. the structures) are attacked. Attacking NP units is not enough to get him to attack as long as you leave the base itself alone (although it is enough for the mini-pod group - hence in 1.10 - 3.1.5 you are usually able to deal with the two groups separately). He certainly doesn't come out if you're just in the general vicinity. Also, in 1.10 - 3.1.5 the commander will go back inside the base if the player withdraws far enough (or enough of the commander’s attached units are damaged - not sure which). Between that behaviour and his retreating when damaged, it’s actually quite hard to destroy the commander outside and you normally have to fight him in the tight confines of the base in 1.10 - 3.1.5.


That’s why I employ the tactic of using artillery and luring the commander and attached units into an ambush.

Image

having said that i have played this level and triggered the video by attacking the new paradigm scanner and that also usually gets the commander to come and get me, although I'd need to double check if that's the same on v1.10, but certainly i does on master as you can see this image my units are in the bottom corner of the map have killed the scanner and the commander has come out and is after my artillery.

Image

so far as i can tell the Commander should come out when the base is triggered by any of the 3 methods attacking the base, attacking the new paradigm scanner of by getting to close to the base. and to the best of my knowledge that is how it is in v1.10 as well although i'd need to double check to be sure.

Not so in master - once triggered, he stays triggered and keeps attacking the player units, even if it means moving outside of the relative protection of the base and its covering fire. An analogy might be in 1.10 - 3.1.5 the commander is in “guard” mode; in master he’s in “pursue” mode (albeit with retreat-when-damaged).


Oddly enough again I don’t see this on my game the commander and attached units do retreat when they start getting hammered although by then its usually to late and they get squashed, because they are hugely out numbered.

Image

I know that shot is zoomed out quiet a bit but you can still clearly see the smoke coming off there units due to being damage.

here is the same shot just zoomed in a bit.

Image

@Berserk Cyborg
Remember how you asked what the hold command should function like take a look at this YouTube vid it demonstrates the correct behaviour for guard hold and pursue.

https://youtu.be/Fz_vvwFovIo
Bethrezen
Trained
Trained
 
Posts: 313
Joined: 25 Sep 2009, 02:05

Re: Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

Postby NoQ » 09 Oct 2017, 21:05

These screenshots have reminded me of #4292 again. I'm sorry that i never completed it.
User avatar
NoQ
Special
Special
 
Posts: 6090
Joined: 24 Dec 2009, 11:35
Location: /var/zone

Re: Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

Postby -Philosopher- » 09 Oct 2017, 23:27

Bethrezen wrote:...I only get that message when my artillery open up on there base, or i attack the new paradigm scanner, or i get to close to there base.

Getting the cutscene when you attack them is valid. When you get too close is not - that's the point. You certainly couldn't trigger it by sighting it across the valley (cf. your first picture of the two) in previous versions.

Bethrezen wrote:so far as i can tell the Commander should come out when the base is triggered by any of the 3 methods attacking the base, attacking the new paradigm scanner of by getting to close to the base. and to the best of my knowledge that is how it is in v1.10 as well although i'd need to double check to be sure.

No. Only one of the three methods should get him to exit the base - attacking the base itself. Attacking the sensor by itself wouldn't get him to come out in previous versions (and certainly not just getting too close). I've verified this on 1.10, 2.3.8 and 3.1.5.

Bethrezen wrote:
Not so in master - once triggered, he stays triggered and keeps attacking the player units, even if it means moving outside of the relative protection of the base and its covering fire. An analogy might be in 1.10 - 3.1.5 the commander is in “guard” mode; in master he’s in “pursue” mode (albeit with retreat-when-damaged).


Oddly enough again I don’t see this on my game the commander and attached units do retreat when they start getting hammered although by then its usually to late and they get squashed, because they are hugely out numbered.

This isn't about retreating. Now it's fixed, the commander retreats on all versions. What differs is what happens when you withdraw from attacking the base. In 1.10 - 3.1.5 the commander returns to his starting position inside the base - via the repair bay if damaged, directly if not. In contrast, on master he chases you wherever you go and only goes back inside to repair (which makes him much easier to tempt away from the base and deal with separately to the fixed defences).

Regarding retreating-when-damaged, however, it's interesting your experience is the commander retreats too late too. In 1.10 - 3.1.5, the commander group retreats from damage very readily - making it difficult to destroy him before he gets to repair (which I'm not complaining about - this adds to the challenge of the stage and thus is a good thing). In contrast, on master you can usually kill him before he makes it back in the gate because he's usually come out further and thus has further to go back, leaves the run too late, has gotten his entourage killed, or all three. Hence my question to @Beserk Cyborg about whether the damage threshold is the same as wzcam.
Last edited by -Philosopher- on 09 Oct 2017, 23:43, edited 1 time in total.
-Philosopher-
Trained
Trained
 
Posts: 115
Joined: 08 Oct 2014, 11:34

Re: Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

Postby -Philosopher- » 09 Oct 2017, 23:29

Ha ha! Someone made an actual map with "bring back persue" as the terrain :D Love it...
-Philosopher-
Trained
Trained
 
Posts: 115
Joined: 08 Oct 2014, 11:34

Re: Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

Postby Berserk Cyborg » 10 Oct 2017, 00:21

-Philosopher- wrote:Getting the cutscene when you attack them is valid. When you get too close is not - that's the point. You certainly couldn't trigger it by sighting it across the valley (cf. your first picture of the two) in previous versions.
Now the video only plays when the New Paradigm is attacked and it is possible to escape from the commander again.

-Philosopher- wrote:Hence my question to @Beserk Cyborg about whether the damage threshold is the same as wzcam.
Not sure, maybe 66% originally? Looked like it so it is back to 66% instead of 30%. In case you want to look at it: https://github.com/Warzone2100/warzone2100/commit/55f38a3608b5910444e765a160f46a22968f5951#diff-b7b2e240c652b8af85b674de8f2d26b9.
Updated-Campaign.wz
(47.6 KiB) Downloaded 17 times
Berserk Cyborg
Code contributor
Code contributor
 
Posts: 298
Joined: 26 Sep 2016, 19:56

Re: Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

Postby -Philosopher- » 10 Oct 2017, 00:52

Berserk Cyborg wrote:Not sure, maybe 66% originally? Looked like it so it is back to 66% instead of 30%. In case you want to look at it: https://github.com/Warzone2100/warzone2100/commit/55f38a3608b5910444e765a160f46a22968f5951#diff-b7b2e240c652b8af85b674de8f2d26b9.
Updated-Campaign.wz

Does look that way, despite the comment about it not being used. What does '//' mean in the .slo file?
What % damage is 'retreat on medium' (for the player, by comparison)?

Anyway, I'll give it another go with the mod tomorrow.
-Philosopher-
Trained
Trained
 
Posts: 115
Joined: 08 Oct 2014, 11:34

Re: Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

Postby Berg » 10 Oct 2017, 03:45

Because of the fragmented player base i do advise you either stop lobby hosting 3.1.5 which most players are using or revert the latest build back to 3.1.5 otherwise a fractured community so small will disappear.
Myself i cant compile the lastest master or play 3.2.3 so i have no choice but to play 3.1.5.
User avatar
Berg
Regular
Regular
 
Posts: 1873
Joined: 02 Sep 2007, 23:25
Location: Australia

Re: Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

Postby -Philosopher- » 10 Oct 2017, 16:48

-Philosopher- wrote:
Berserk Cyborg wrote:Not sure, maybe 66% originally? Looked like it so it is back to 66% instead of 30%. In case you want to look at it: https://github.com/Warzone2100/warzone2100/commit/55f38a3608b5910444e765a160f46a22968f5951#diff-b7b2e240c652b8af85b674de8f2d26b9.
Updated-Campaign.wz

Does look that way, despite the comment about it not being used. What does '//' mean in the .slo file?
What % damage is 'retreat on medium' (for the player, by comparison)?

Anyway, I'll give it another go with the mod tomorrow.


Alpha 05

Checked this over lunch today. It hasn't worked, unfortunately. The commander is going back to its start position too quickly and if the gap between hits on base structures is big enough (e.g. as with artillery volleys), he just yo-yos between jerking towards the gate and going back to where he came from. I suspect it'd take the continuous hits of machinegun fire to him to make it outside the base, and he'd return to his start position too readily anyway. Once the base is attacked, the commander should press his counter-attack as long as there are hostiles in range of the base (and he isn't retreating to repair).
Image
Destroying this much base without being attacked by the commander shouldn't be possible.

[Edit]
Sorry, should have mentioned - the threshold for returning to repair seems about right now. Once the above issue is sorted, I imagine this part of the stage will play close enough to wzcam now.
-Philosopher-
Trained
Trained
 
Posts: 115
Joined: 08 Oct 2014, 11:34

Re: Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

Postby -Philosopher- » 10 Oct 2017, 23:56

Alpha 06

1. The red dot for the 2nd LZ is still showing prematurely (before it opens):
Image

… is the only real issue remaining with this stage. A minor other thing -

2. I found a bug (self-inflicted) in one of the earlier versions. If you somehow manage to destroy all four towers surrounding an LZ before it opens, you then can’t close it later:
Image
Worth checking this can't happen jscript? That said, it’s not high priority - because of the increasing difficulty of shooting things at differing elevations as you progress through the versions, this would be very difficult to achieve in practice in later versions.
-Philosopher-
Trained
Trained
 
Posts: 115
Joined: 08 Oct 2014, 11:34

Re: Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

Postby Bethrezen » 11 Oct 2017, 00:52

Alpha 05

Ok so just been doing a bit of testing on alpha 05 on v1.10 to see if I can confirm or debunk your findings and here is what I have

As far as the trigger for activating the new paradigm base goes the way master is currently does appears to be correct. You will get the FMV about your attacks not going unpunished if you

1.) attack there base
2.) attack the new paradigm scanner
3.) get to close to the base
4.) attack the mini rocket pod group

Now with regards to number 3 the trigger zone for this does appear to be smaller on v1.10 than it is on master, on master the FMV will trigger as you approach the entrance however on v1.10 I had to actually enter the base before it would trigger.

With regards to the mini rocket pod group these appear to come after you if you

1.) attack the new paradigm scanner
2.) attack attack there base
3.) attack the scav base

Note however that mini rocket pod group wont come if I attack the scav base from the ridge line above so it appears I have to actually be within site range of the New paradigm base before they will trigger.

With regards to triggering the commander and the attached units it would appear you are correct on this one you need to actually attack the base or basically drive right in through the front door, before the commander and attached units will trigger.

with regards to the the point at which the commander will retreat on v1.10 that appears to be at medium damage, but he does not appear to retreat if you destroy the attached units.

With regards to the point at which the commander will brake off its attack and return to base seems to be about here.

Image

-Philosopher- wrote:Alpha 06

2. I found a bug (self-inflicted) in one of the earlier versions. If you somehow manage to destroy all four towers surrounding an LZ before it opens, you then can’t close it later:
Image
Worth checking this can't happen jscript? That said, it’s not high priority - because of the increasing difficulty of shooting things at differing elevations as you progress through the versions, this would be very difficult to achieve in practice in later versions.


With direct fire units yes with artillery it may well be possible they certainly have enough range to do that, the question is could a scanner actually get a lock on all 4 turrets ? i know that you can hit at least 3 of the 4 turrets using artillery not so sure about the fourth I'd just have to give it a go and see

Though that is certainly an interesting find because that may well brake the level if you can't close the drop zone later on.
Bethrezen
Trained
Trained
 
Posts: 313
Joined: 25 Sep 2009, 02:05

Re: Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

Postby -Philosopher- » 11 Oct 2017, 01:22

Bethrezen wrote:With direct fire units yes with artillery it may well be possible they certainly have enough range to do that, the question is could a scanner actually get a lock on all 4 turrets ? i know that you can hit at least 3 of the 4 turrets using artillery not so sure about the fourth I'd just have to give it a go and see

It's certainly possible. Check the screenshot I attached. I did that on 2.3.8, however. Whether it's still possible or not on later versions (with their changed logic for shooting things on ridges) I'm less sure about. My thinking, however, is it's theoretically possible, so for safety's sake, it probably makes sense to handle this condition explicitly in jscript.
-Philosopher-
Trained
Trained
 
Posts: 115
Joined: 08 Oct 2014, 11:34

Re: Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

Postby -Philosopher- » 11 Oct 2017, 01:33

Bethrezen wrote:With regards to the mini rocket pod group these appear to come after you if you

1.) attack the new paradigm scanner
2.) attack attack there base
3.) attack the scav base

No.3 isn't correct. I regularly wipe out the scav base on the valley floor without disturbing NP. e.g.
Image
I still haven't got the cutscene about being punished for attacks at this point of the game.

This is the screen cap of the moment the cutscene was announced:
Image
I even managed to build all the defences at the bottom of the picture without getting NP's attention - they're just out of range of anything NP and therefore haven't fired a shot yet.

Those particular images are on 3.1.5, but I've confirmed it's the same on 1.10, 2.3.8 and 3.1.5.
-Philosopher-
Trained
Trained
 
Posts: 115
Joined: 08 Oct 2014, 11:34

Re: Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

Postby Bethrezen » 11 Oct 2017, 01:50

ok so just moved the list of general issue find it here

http://forums.wz2100.net/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=13753
Bethrezen
Trained
Trained
 
Posts: 313
Joined: 25 Sep 2009, 02:05

Re: Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

Postby Bethrezen » 11 Oct 2017, 02:17

It's certainly possible. Check the screenshot I attached. I did that on 2.3.8, however. Whether it's still possible or not on later versions (with their changed logic for shooting things on ridges) I'm less sure about. My thinking, however, is it's theoretically possible, so for safety's sake, it probably makes sense to handle this condition explicitly in jscript.


Indeed, it would definitely be a good idea to add a check to address this possibility on the off chance that it does happen because you don't want situations like this braking the game.

question did you actually check to see if your inability to close the drop zone stopped the level from ending because if did then there a new check will need to be added, however if the levels still ends fine despite the inability to close the drop zone then i don't see it being a big problem, it would simply me a minor inconvenience.

No.3 isn't correct. I regularly wipe out the scav base on the valley floor without disturbing NP. e.g.
Image
I still haven't got the cutscene about being punished for attacks at this point of the game


maybe, mayby not it depends, see when i attack the base from here with my heavy machine gunners.

Image

Then the mini pod group doesn't come, also if you take out the scav base with artillery then again they wont come.

However if i attack them from here

Image

Then sometimes they will come as you can see in this screen shot, I'm not sure exactly what triggers them because there trigger seems a little intermittent on v1.10 but it does happen, it might possibly be triggered by me collecting the artefact that's about the only thing i can think of since i had my units set to hold fire so they didn't accidental shoot one of the new paradigm turrets.
Bethrezen
Trained
Trained
 
Posts: 313
Joined: 25 Sep 2009, 02:05

PreviousNext

Return to News and announcements